Monday, August 19, 2013
GM food labeling act
Second of three senate legislative hearings on potential genetically modified food labeling act held in southern Illinois
Genetically modified food, the subject of Senate Bill 1666, is a relatively new way to do something that humans have done for thousands of years: artificial selection.
However, both state and federal governments are trying to catch up to the science and determine whether or not consumers should be warned that certain products contain genetically modified organisms, which SB 1666 would require.
An Illinois senate legislative hearing was held on this topic Aug. 7 at SIUC. The event, which was the second of three planned hearings in Illinois, was hosted by the non-governmental organization Food & Water Watch.
This organization, according to its website, is a national consumer advocacy group focusing on corporate and government accountability regarding food, water and fishing.
Genetically modified crops were first released into the market in 1996. By 2010, approximately 86 percent of corn and 93 percent of soybeans in the United States were genetically modified, according to a report by the National Agricultural Statistics Board.
SIUE biology professor Darron Luesse said genetic modification differs from the traditional method humans use to modify organisms in a number of ways.
Though both result in genetic changes to the organism, artificial selection can take thousands of generations to get the desired trait to be prevalent.
“With genetic engineering, when you are transforming an organism, you are putting in some specific piece of DNA from outside that organism, and that [DNA] doesn’t normally occur there,” Luesse said. “With artificial selection, you are basically looking at the offspring of a given plant and picking out the traits you like the best and then breeding those, so you push [the plant’s evolution in] a different direction.”
SB 1666 was introduced earlier this year by Senator David Kohler (D-Peoria), a member of the Food Labeling Subcommittee of the Illinois Senate Committee on Agriculture and Conservation.
The members of the Food Labeling Subcommittee were the hosts of the hearing, with Senators Kohler, Sam McCann (R-Jacksonville), Michael Frerichs (D-Champaign) and Linda Holmes (D-Aurora) all present.
Opposition
Senators first heard testimony from opponents of the legislation. Jeffrey Adkinson, representative of the Illinois Grain and Feed Association, was first to raise his concerns.
The way the current system works, Adkinson said, would make the labeling of genetically modified food cumbersome and expensive.
“By mandating labeling, the system will be required to do more identity preservation, which puts more variables into the system,” Adkinson said. “More variables mean more opportunities for things to go wrong, which translates into increased risk resulting in more costs.”
Identity preservation is when agricultural shipments have their details tracked.
Adkinson argued that any legislation requiring the labeling of genetically modified food ought to be handled at the federal level.
After Adkinson finished his testimony, Senator Koehler said he would like the U.S. Congress to pass genetically modified food labeling eventually. However, he wished to start the debate at the state level.
Dennis Thompson, the chief executive officer of the Illinois Crop Improvement Association, told the Senators he was concerned the increased burden on agribusiness required by labeling would result in both an increase in the price of food and a reduced variety of available food for Illinois consumers.
Because food production is a global industry, he said some food manufacturers would avoid business in Illinois.
Other opponents included a food manufacturer and a representative of the Illinois Farm Bureau, all voicing similar concerns.
Karen Batra, director of communications at Bio, the national trade association for biotech companies, said in an interview that they support voluntary labeling programs such as certified organic for non-genetically modified food and products that do not use pesticides or hormones. They do not support legally mandated labeling, though.
“If a consumer sees that a particular food is mandated by law to carry a certain label, it infers automatically that there’s some kind of safety concern when there is none,” Batra said.
Proponents
Jerry Bradley, a Carbondale co-op manager, responded to the economic and logistic concerns of the opponents by saying that most packaging has health claims about fiber, protein, cholesterol and others. He argued that it should not be a major problem to note a product’s genetic modification as well.
“Ultimately, this issue is not about the science, the economics or the claims being made by one side or the other about genetically engineered food,” Bradley said. “This issue is a matter of transparency, trust and the right to know, pure and simple. Just label it.”
Wesley Jarrell, professor emeritus of Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Illinois and a Champaign farmer, said, because they are new, the knowledge on genetically modified organisms is still limited, and America ought to be cautious until the public knows genetic modification is safe.
“If [genetically engineered] products are so good for individuals and society, growers and processors should be proud to put it on the label,” Jarrell said. “At the same time, we believe it’s our responsibility to be accountable and transparent to our customers. They deserve the right to all the information that we can give them so that they can decide what to feed to themselves and their families.”
Senators also heard supporting testimony from both a regular farmer and an organic farmer.
Geneticists or other scientists were not present and did not give testimony at the meeting.
What genetic modification does
Luesse said a genetically modified organism is one that receives a piece of DNA from a different species through specific human techniques.
The two primary techniques are using a bacteria to infect a plant with a desired gene, and blasting a plant’s cells with a particle gun that shoots gold that is coated in DNA.
In both methods, the key is to transfer the genes into the plant’s reproductive cells to ensure offspring of the plant carry the trait.
The poster child, Luesse said, of genetic modification is Bt corn, which expresses the Bt toxin that normally occurs in the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to ward off the European corn borer and other pests.
Luesse said genetically modified plants can also be made immune to diseases and herbicides, the latter making herbicide more effective in killing weeds but keeping the crop alive and reducing the amount of herbicide used.
All of these varieties of genetically modified crops are meant to increase yields, according to Luesse. By increasing the yield of plants without increasing the required land, genetically modified crops allow for smaller fields with more food to feed the growing world population.
Luesse said genetically modified crops can help solve a number of other problems. For instance, tomato plants can be bred to remove salt from soil high in salt content.
Genetic engineers are also trying to tackle Vitamin A deficiency in the developing world with Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene in the edible parts that the body can convert to Vitamin A. Luesse said that the work on Golden Rice is still ongoing, and he has yet to see definitive evidence that those who eat Golden Rice are getting any nutritional content.
New York Times science journalist Amy Harmon recently wrote “A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA,” which describes a recent application for genetic modification, a last ditch effort to save Florida oranges from a bacteria disease called citrus greening.
Harmon wrote, “Leading scientific organizations have concluded that shuttling DNA between species carries no intrinsic risk to human health or the environment, and that such alterations can be reliably tested.”
Despite this consensus among regulatory organizations, a July 27 New York Times poll found 93 percent of Americans support labeling genetically modified food, with 75 percent concerned about genetically modified food. 37 percent feared genetically modified food would cause cancer or allergies, and 26 percent believed them to be toxic or not safe to eat.
Genes we add to an ecosystem can move from a genetically modified crop to other, non-genetically modified crops nearby or into weeds, according to Luesse.
“There’s always a concern when you’re messing with the natural dynamic if you’re adding genes to a system, that that’s going to change the whole system,” Luesse said. “It’s part of our duty as a species on this planet to not screw up the whole thing. We need to be careful not to allow these genes we put in to become ubiquitous and move around when they probably shouldn’t be.”
Yet, Luesse maintained that genetically modified crops can help the environment in a variety of ways.
Genetically modified crops, producing some of their own nutrients, also require less fertilizer, which leads to less fertilizer run off into rivers, which in turn causes fewer dead zones in lakes and oceans.
Ultimately, according to Luesse, humans may not have a choice between genetically modified organisms and organics.
Thomas Malthus, an 18th century mathematician, estimated human population would outpace food production by around 1950. The reason this did not happen, Luesse said, was the Green Revolution that began in the early 1960s, which featured advances in planting methods, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and mechanization to increase yield per acre.
As a result, Luesse said, the 1960 agricultural output of around 250 million tons went to 700 million tons by the year 2000 with 10 million fewer acres of farmland.
“We’re not going to come up with some super, new fertilizer or herbicides, pesticides or better tracker. What is increasing is [population],” Luesse said. “We’re making more people that are going to want to eat, but we’re not making more food per acre. Long term, we’re going to need to get more per acre, and I have not seen any technology, other than genetic engineering, that has the capacity to do this.”
The third senate legislative hearing on SB 1666 will be held Sept. 17 in Chicago. ALESTLELIVE
GMO Labeling Backers Outspend Foes In Washington
GMO Labeling Backers Outspend Foes In Washington
Backers of a Washington state ballot initiative to require labels on genetically modified foods have raised four times more cash than their opponents.
Both sides’ contributions have come mostly from outside Washington state.
Supporters of Initiative 522 have raised $3.9 million in their quest to have genetically engineered foods labeled in Washington. Opponents have raised $952,000, according to the state’s campaign-finance database.
The biggest spender in the labeling debate is already known for labels of a different kind.
The company that makes Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps has poured about $800,000 into the campaign in favor of labels. The family-owned soap company’s eccentric labels are text-heavy and squint-inducing. Their barrage of words includes lines like:
"All-One! All-One! Exceptions Eternally? Absolute None!"
Now, Dr. Bronner’s labels also say “Yes on 522” in a much larger font.
On a video splashed on the homepage of the California company’s website, three grandchildren of Dr. Bronner's founder urge viewers throughout the country to support the Washington state labeling of genetically engineered foods.
“Once that conversation starts to happen in Washington state, it can definitely be heard all over the country,” Lisa Bronner says in the video.
Of the money supporting the genetic labeling initiative, 71 percent has come from outside Washington state.
Ninety-nine percent of the money opposing the labels has also come from outside the state.
The biggest donors to the No on 522 campaign include the Grocery Manufacturers Association (a food industry lobbying group) and companies involved in genetic engineering, like Monsanto Co., Dupont Co. and Dow Chemical Co., according to an analysis by campaign-finance watchdogs at the Maplight Foundation in Washington, D.C.
With ballots due in November, it’s still early days: Neither side has started its barrage of TV advertising yet, and much more money is expected to pour into both sides.
Last year, biotech and food companies raised $46 million in opposition to a similar food-labeling measure in California. They outspent backers of genetic labeling 5 to 1, and the measure was rejected by California voters.
If Initiative 522 passes, Washington would be the first state to require labeling of its genetically engineered foods. KUOW
SA: Deputy minister warns of risks of shrinking farmland
Deputy minister warns of risks of shrinking farmland
Deputy Agriculture Minister Pieter Mulder. Picture: ARNOLD PRONTO
WITH high- and medium-value agricultural land equal to the size of the Kruger National Park lost to mining and urban developments, the decline in arable land for farming in South Africa is threatening food security, Deputy Agriculture Minister Pieter Mulder said last week.
At a symposium on genetically modified crops and food safety, Dr Mulder said non-agricultural developments on agricultural land were increasing.
"This area is no longer available (for farming) and cannot be reclaimed to provide the food, feed, fodder and fibre that is necessary for the continued welfare of the people of South Africa," he said.
A spatial statistical analysis by his department in 2011 had found that the area suitable for crop production which had been "irrevocably converted to non-agricultural uses" was equal to that of the Kruger park — which covers about 2-million hectares, roughly the size of Wales or Israel.
Dr Mulder said the available high-value arable land in South Africa had declined steadily from 0.38ha per person in 1996 to 0.31ha per person in 2005, with the current availability estimated at less than 0.25ha per person. "This is well below the international norm of 0.7ha per person."
He also warned that land used to produce food could be rendered unsuitable by climate change. "The buffering capacity of national and global agricultural markets to absorb supply shocks and stabilise agricultural commodity prices is directly tied to the continued functioning of land and water systems.
"Climate change brings additional risks and further unpredictability of harvests."
Against this backdrop, Dr Mulder said a "mixture of interventions and innovation" was needed.
Genetic modification had a role to play in increasing production to "reduce poverty and increase food security". But he warned it could not be regarded in isolation as an overall solution to South Africa’s agricultural challenges.
"The technology must be viewed as just one of the many biotechnology tools available to the agriculture sector. We therefore advocate that the application of (the) technology be ... used in combination with existing conventional agricultural practices.
"As with any human activity, potential risks are associated with genetic modification and ... should be addressed in a coherent, science-based manner. With the enormous number of food-insecure countries in Africa we do not have the luxury of being influenced by emotional unscientific propaganda," he said.
Grain SA CEO Jannie de Villiers said political instability was often the consequence of food insecurity and could even lead to the overthrow of governments.BDLIVE
Sunday, August 18, 2013
The Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court of India should consider India's technological progress
Dear friends and colleagues:
I am sending a request to all of you to sign my petition that I am championing on behalf of the Indian scientific community whose biotech research and development activities have been stopped by a government order for over two years now. There is an ongoing Public Interest Litigation PIL) going on in the Supreme Court of India which had appointed a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) that has issued a damning report and is recommending to the court to stop all testing and field trials of GM crops ad infinitum.
With the support of all my scientific friends and colleagues, I am submitting a public petition to the Supreme Court to carefully consider the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that attests to the safety and utility of GM crops. I am also appealing to judges that India's agricultural development will be heavily compromised, if the GM crops technology is not allowed to take root in Indian agriculture.
May I request all of you to support the cause of the welfare of Indian agriculture and sign my petition which will only take just a couple of minutes!
Sincerely,
Dr. Shanthu Shantharam
The Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court of India should consider India's technological progress
I've started the petition "The Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court of India should consider India's technological progress" and need your help to get it off the ground.
Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here's the link:
Here's why it's important:
To ensure that scientifically rationale decisions are made for the implementation of progressive technology like GM technology in the interest of India's agricultural development.
You can sign my petition by clicking here.
Thanks!
Sivramiah (Shanthu) Shantharam
Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods in India
Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods in India
The central government has made it mandatory to label all genetically modified foods sold in a packaged form, but the regulation does not specify the tolerance level or the range of products it will cover. Much depends on these factors, including the mechanisms for verification, their cost and the market outcome. Without fine-tuning, the regulation will be hard to enforce, given that the labelling process is costly and complicated.
In its present form, the regulation seems incomplete for two reasons. One, it does not specify the tolerance level (the maximum threshold level above which a food would be regarded as GM). The tolerance levels in other countries range from 0.1% to 5%. Two, it does not mention the scope of the regulation. There is a wide variation possible in the range of products that are covered under a labelling regulation. In a narrow form, the regulation could be limited to products that have detectable levels of GM content, such as primary products, fresh and raw produce. The scope can be expanded to include foods that are produced from GM organisms even though the foods themselves do not contain detectable levels of transgenic protein. Examples of such products include highly processed products derived from GM ingredients such as edible oils, additives and flavours, and meat and animal products fed with GM feed.
The scope of labelling also automatically implies the verification mechanisms that need to accompany labelling. If labelling is required only for foods with detectable levels of GM ingredients, then verification of non-GM status can rely on testing the final product for genetically modified protein or DNA. Detection methods work best with fresh raw foods. However, if labelling is extended to processed foods where existing testing mechanisms cannot detect the transgenic DNA accurately or at a reasonable cost, then compliance for these products will require evidence of “identity preservation”. An identity preservation system requires production, processing and distribution systems where the identity of the food or trait is preserved. This could result in segmented channels of production, processing and marketing. In the absence of clarity on the threshold levels and scope of the regulation, it is not feasible for the authorities to implement it. It is expected that refinements are coming.
Edible Oils and Imported Foods
If the regulation is intended to have a wider scope, all branded and packaged cottonseed oil, imported soy oil, and all packaged edible oils blended with these two oils would immediately come under its net. This is because cottonseed oil is the only food item in India that is derived from GM seeds, and is domestically produced and consumed. Further, although India does not produce GM soyabeans and does not allow the import of GM soyabeans, it does import soyabean oil from large GM food-producing countries such as Argentina, Brazil and the US. Other than edible oils, products likely to be affected by the labelling policy are imported foods such as breakfast cereals containing cornflakes, tortilla chips, multigrain crackers, sweet corn, soy milk, cookies and chocolates containing soy lecithin, and so on. If the regulation, however, has a narrower scope, it will be applicable only to imported products as no GM food crop has yet been approved for commercial cultivation in India.
The focus of the regulation on packaged foods, naturally, restricts the purview of the regulation. Since it is not applicable to unprocessed or unpackaged products, all agricultural produce and edible oils sold in loose form are not covered by it. This would leave the majority of agricultural produce outside the regulatory, net as more than 99% of food and grocery in India is sold informally through street hawkers and small and large fixed shops. Retail chains would have to decide whether or not to package fruits and vegetables. Thus, Bt brinjal, if approved for commercial cultivation, does not have to be labelled. Clearly, the labelling policy caters to select consumers. That not only increases the chances of its implementation, but also limits the benefits.
Compliance with the labelling law will require that an unlabelled food is non-GM. While the legal obligation of the GM food producer ends with applying a label, suppliers of unlabelled foods would have to supply identity-preservation documentation to show that their product is non-GM. This implies that the suppliers of these foods have to invest in segregation of products and marketing channels to preserve the identity of their products to verify their claim. Various studies estimating identity-preservation costs indicate them to be in the range of 8% to 16% of the product price. Some of these costs will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher product prices.
Product labelling of any kind is meant to provide information to consumers so that they can make informed choices. Food companies that have to display this label, however, can also react to the labelling policy in their choice of products and ingredients. Food producers and marketers that may be using GM ingredients have to decide whether to keep their products as such and label them as GM, or change ingredients or products to avoid labelling. For instance, the imposition of trans fat labelling in many countries, such as the US and also India, has resulted in changes of ingredients towards alternatives without trans fats to satisfy consumer demand.
Interlinked Process
The chain reaction between labelling requirements, consumer perception, and ingredient choice is key to understanding the market effects of GM food labelling. Since there are costs associated with segregation of products, this will happen only if there is a critical minimum market size for a higher-priced non-GM product. In other words, product segregation will take place only if the segment of consumers willing to pay more for a non-GM variant is sufficiently large, so that it is profitable to differentiate products. The labelling policy by itself cannot ensure product segregation or greater consumer choice.
Bansal and Gruere (2012) analyse the economic implications of introducing mandatory labelling of GM food in India in the case of cottonseed oil and soy oil. They argue that the economic impact of labelling depends on the market outcome it generates, which in turn depends on three factors – the potential consumer reaction to a product with or without a label; the costs and market adjustments associated with the labelling policy, and the public enforcement effort.
They find no evidence of the emergence of non-GM soy or cottonseed oil in the markets surveyed in India, indicating that producers do not have incentives to segregate products. That is, the willingness to pay a price premium for GM-free products is insufficient to cover marketing and segregation costs. It will be interesting to see if the mandatory labelling policy changes the market outcome. This may happen if some consumers are weakly GM averse, that is, they switch to non-GM alternatives on seeing a GM label. In addition, some consumers may avoid potential GM products altogether.
Due to the mandatory labelling policy, GM-averse consumers could move to other edible oils. To avoid GM labelling, food companies may also switch from soy oil ingredients. This would reduce the revenues of the soy oil industry and could depress the price of soy products to the benefit of other edible oils. Domestic edible oils could benefit at the cost of imported oils. A very large proportion of soybean oil is mixed with other oils to obtain blended refined oil, or vanaspati, which would also have to be segregated. The entire process and the bulk-handling nature of commodity trade would be affected, which would increase the costs of production. This would also potentially increase the observed under-capacity of the edible-oil processing sector.
Enforcement Challenge
The labelling of edible oils would also create important enforcement challenges because of the impossibility of testing at the final product stage. This means that if GM and non-GM alternatives are marketed, a viable documentation system of some sort would have to be introduced. Thus, big cottonseed oil or soybean oil importing companies may prefer to label their products regardless of the content. But smaller oil units would not do so.
The market outcome could be different for staple crops such as rice. If India approved production or import of GM rice, the majority of small producers would continue to sell co-mingled rice. However, big companies selling packaged premium-priced rice that are targeting consumer segments willing to pay more may very well look at this as an opportunity to further differentiate their products. Indeed, premium brands in India are already advertising non-GM aromatic rice and selling it at a premium price. This misleading claim (there is no GM rice in India) reveals the interest of companies in keeping their rice non-GM.
Even with a restricted focus, the new regulation would likely be imperfectly enforced. Due to segregation costs, there is a high risk of mislabelling – unlabelled GM products and non-GM products labelled as GM. In other words, labelling involves a high cost of entry, a difficult transition, and the setting up of a relatively costly system in the long run, with no guarantee of success,
Interestingly, a similar initiative was taken in California, in the US, a country where GM crops are common. On 6 November 2012, Californian voters had to decide for or against Proposition 37, which, if passed, would have required mandatory labelling of foods produced from GM crops. The California initiative proposed to implement the strictest threshold levels, and planned a zero-tolerance policy for the accidental presence of small amounts of GM substances, even if the US government has approved the GM material for human consumption. Given GM crops are common in the US, such strict tolerance levels would have made it impractical for farmers and the food industry to comply with the regulation. Significant funding poured in both for and against the initiative. While giant bioengineering companies like Monsanto and DuPont spent huge amounts of money to defeat the proposition, the owners of the biggest organic brands in the country supported it. Voters rejected the proposed labelling law by six percentage points.
Finally, a word on scientific evidence on GM foods. Scientists claim that there is no science-based justification for mandatory labelling of GM food because there is no evidence that such foods pose any risks to human health. Recently, the American Association for the Advancement of Science formally came out against labelling GM foods. EPW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)